Sunday, December 31, 2006

Science The Left Doesn't Like

The Left likes to harangue the Right for not supporting science--when the science is stem cell research or intelligent design. Is there any science the Left doesn't like? How about science, conducted at Oregon State, that could conceivably turn gays straight?

The concept was addressed in a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode and more recently in the third installment of the X-Men movies. Now that it's gone from the screen to the laboratory, what do we hear?

Martina Navratilova, the lesbian tennis player who won Wimbledon nine times, and scientists and gay rights campaigners in Britain have called for the project to be abandoned.

Navratilova defended the “right” of sheep to be gay.

Here is an interesting statistic, one that puts the lie to the claim that only humans are homosexual:

Approximately one ram in 10 prefers to mount other rams rather than mate with ewes, reducing its value to a farmer. Initially, the publicly funded project aimed to improve the productivity of herds.

Want to read something else interesting?

"It’s a touchy issue. In fact, several studies have shown that people who believe homosexuality is biologically based are less homophobic than people who think that this orientation is acquired.”

And here's something related to what I've written before about deaf "culture":

Potentially, the techniques could one day be adapted for human use, with doctors perhaps being able to offer parents pre-natal tests to determine the likely sexuality of offspring or a hormonal treatment to change the orientation of a child.

Wild. Would this be playing God? or repairing an abnormality?

Some on the Right are against embryonic stem cell research because such research, in some degree, justifies abortion. Some want to teach intelligent design, in my opinion to "backdoor" religion into schools. The Left rails against these. So what do they do when one of their own sacred cows is gored?

Udo Schuklenk, Professor of Bioethics at Glasgow Caledonian University, who has written to the researchers pressing them to stop, said: “I don’t believe the motives of the study are homophobic, but their work brings the terrible possibility of exploitation by homophobic societies. Imagine this technology in the hands of Iran, for example.

“It is typical of the US to ignore the global context in which this is taking place.”

But of course! They try to stop the science, and then throw in some anti-Americanism for good measure! I'm tempted to say "What do you expect from someone named Udo?" but that wouldn't be very classy of me, so I won't.

Peter Tatchell, the gay rights campaigner, said: “These experiments echo Nazi research in the early 1940s which aimed at eradicating homosexuality. They stink of eugenics.

Throw in the Nazis!

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the pressure group, condemned the study as “a needless slaughter of animals, an affront to human dignity and a colossal waste of precious research funds”.

PETA's against it!

You know who it would be fun to ask about this? The Reverend Jesse Jackson and the Reverend Al Sharpton.


Anonymous said...

How about the junk science surrounding the claim that the earth is only 6,000 years old?

Who is making that claim?

(Hint, not the left)

Darren said...

Only religious zealots make that 6000 year old claim.

Incidentally, that figure was (incorrectly) calculated by a Catholic monk during the Middle Ages. Do the Catholics still make that claim?

And with which party to a large majority of American Catholics cast their votes?

(Hint, not the Republican Party)

Anonymous said...

So why are the tendrils of the Bush Admin reaching out and silencing scientists at Grand Canyon who would dare to give visitors information about the scientifically accepted age of the canyon?

Bush White House vs. Grand Canyon's Age

Read it and realize that the radicals who have kidnapped the willing right wing will not rest until the 6000 years figure (a core structure in the "intelligent design" nonsense and nonscience) is written into law.

Catholics may have calculated it. But they have since moved on. Wacko ID-ers now embrace it, and where they lead, the right wingnuts blindly follow. They'll always take votes over scientific integrity.

Then again, elections don't turn on scientific integrity, so it's all good, right?

Darren said...

A book is *on sale* at the park that says something silly, and you think that's scream-worthy? And I did something you probably didn't--I looked at the NPS Grand Canyon web site. Oh, and look what I found!!!

Are the oldest rocks in the world exposed at Grand Canyon?

No. Although the oldest rocks at Grand Canyon (2000 million years old) are fairly old by any standard, the oldest rocks in the world are closer to 4000 million years old. The oldest exposed rocks in North America, which are among the oldest rocks in the world, are in northern Canada.

And where's that tidbit hidden? Why, on the Frequently Asked Questions page!

So I don't believe your linked story about rangers/guides being forbidden to answer a question for which the answer is posted on the official web site.

And how about this?

The bookstores throughout Grand Canyon National Park, are operated by the Grand Canyon Association. GCA is a private, non-profit organization founded in 1932 to support the educational goals of the National Park Service at Grand Canyon.

The association provides financial support to Grand Canyon National Park, publishes canyon related books and free park publications, funds research and naturalist programs, and helps support the park's research library and exhibits.

It's not even a government-run bookstore. I doubt President Bush has much sway over what books get sold there.

Which makes the rest of your argument look pretty stupid. ID-ers lead, and rightwing nuts blindly follow? Since I'm not following I guess I'm not a rightwing nut in your eyes--been telling you that for some time, and I'm glad you're finally coming around to believing it. And winning elections based on the belief that the world is 6000 years old? Come on, even you can't really believe that's going on; you must say that either to try to get a rise out of me, or to throw a bunch of ca-ca out there and hope it sticks. Either way, you come out looking like a fool.

Darren said...

I just checked that link again. Towards the end of the day on January 2nd (reading the comments here), they admit that the gag order was a "misinterpretation" of the quoted press release. Additionally, other commenters point out that the book in question is in a section of books that also deal with Native American beliefs about the creation of the canyon.

Keep searching for the Christian Cabal, anonymous. You didn't find it in this case.

Anonymous said...

The bookstore is administered by the GCA. That's all well and good. As they operate the the bookstore within the national park, their wares are subject to approval by the National Park Service. So the NPS has full authority over what the private, non-profit GCA can or cannot sell in the national park.

If they allow the sale of a book these people would like, then yes, we have a problem. And since the NPS is administered by the Department of the Interior, that problem traces back to the Bush White House. I would bet a considerable sum of money that everyone associated with ICR voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004. So they are your people.

The anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-deliberative, authoritarian nature of the Bush White House is evident to anyone paying attention. This affair is but a thread in that tapestry.

BTW, you can also save yourself some time and trouble by leaving the gratuitous personal invective and bellicose swagger out of your posts and comments. Stick to the issues and let your readers make their own judgments. Don't be like FoxNews and assume your audience is so dumb you have to do *all* the thinking for them.

Darren said...

So let's see. The book is there with books on Indian spirituality and Indian views of how the canyon was formed. Even the people who sent out the press release (PEER) say the "gag order" was misinterpreted. The web site you sent me to acknowledges this.

And you're still trying to defend your comment as some brilliant, stop-the-Christians-before-they-take-over-everything

You obviously need someone else to think for you, and since you come to this site, I'll carry that burden.